Bangalore District Court
Kum. Anisha Raghavan vs Harit Sethi on 6 July, 2026
KABC030268502019
Presented on : 10-04-2019
Registered on : 10-04-2019
Decided on : 30-06-2026
Duration : 7 years, 2 months, 20 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 30th day of June-2026
:Present: Sri.Thimmaiah.G B.A. LLB.
XLI ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.8764/2019
Judgment U/sec,.355 of Cr.P.C.
Date of Offence 26.07.2015
Complainant State by Amruthahalli Police
Station,
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused Person A1. Narayanaswamy( Split up)
A2. Sangamesh
S/o. Parvath Raj,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at.No.53/1, Sumangali
Judgment 2 C.C.No.8764/2019
Seva Ashram Road,
Hebbal, Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,. 332, 323, 506 R/w sec.,
34 of IPC.
Plea Recorded on:05.11.2024 and
accused No.2 is Pleaded not guilty.
Examination U/sec., On 11.06.2026
313 of Cr.P.C recorded
on:
Final Oder Accused No.2 is Acquitted.
Date of Order 30.06.2026
Thimmaiah.G
XLI ACJM, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Amruthhalli Police Station has filed charge
sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/sec,. 332,
323, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
It is alleged that, On 26.07.2015, between 8.15 and 8.20
am, while Cw.1 was on traffic control duty at the bus stop
going towards K.R. Puram, on the jurisdiction of Amruthahalli
Police Station, Hebbal Ring Road, at that time, the accused,
Judgment 3 C.C.No.8764/2019brought and stopped the BMTC bus K A 42 F 1760 at a no
parking place. When Cw.1 told the accused, that the bus
should not be stopped here, for that, the accused No.1 & 2
picked up the quarrel with Cw.1, who was working in the
government, and assaulted the Cw.1 with their hands, causing
injuries. Further, the accused No.1 & 2 given life threat to
Cw.1 and obstructed his government duty and thereby the
accused has committed the above said alleged offences which
are punishable U/sec,. 332, 323, 506 R/w sec., 34 of IPC.
3. During the pendency of the trail, the case against the
accused No.1 is split up. After filing the charge sheet,
cognizance taken for the offences punishable U/sec,. 324, 341,
353, 504 of IPC against the accused No.2 and accused No.2
was released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished
to the accused No.2 as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard
before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the
accused No.2 language known to him wherein he has denied
the same and claim to be tried.
4. In order to secure the Cw.2 to 5 witnesses, this
court issued Summons and Proclamation. But even though
the sufficient time give to the concerned police, the concerned
police failed to secure these witness. Moreover, this case is 08
years old. In this regard relied on the following Hon’ble High
Court, full bench Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed
Judgment 4 C.C.No.8764/2019
in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24
March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it
held as below:
2. Of the two questions which have been
referred to this Full Bench, the first one,
namely, whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P.
C., a Magistrate can acquit the accused if the
prosecution fails to apply for the issue of
summons to any witness and does not
produce the witness for several hearings and
does not serve summons on the witnesses
despite having been granted sufficient
opportunity to serve the summons or to
produce the witnesses, is the one that directly
arises for determination in these appeals. The
second question which arises for
determination by us incidentally is whether a
Magistrate can acquit the accused under
Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution
does not apply for the issue of summons to
any of the witnesses and does not produce the
witness for several hearings and does not
serve the summons on the witnesses despite
having been granted sufficient opportunities
to serve the summons on the witnesses or to
produce the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under
Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that
even though the cases had been posted for
hearing on various dates and summons had
been issued to the witnesses for all the
Judgment 5 C.C.No.8764/2019hearings, the witnesses were not produced on
any of the hearing dates and in spite of a
notice issued that the case would be disposed
of without examining the witnesses if they are
not produced the prosecution did not choose
to let in any evidence and as such the
Magistrate found that the prosecution had no
evidence to let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar,
1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as
follows: “It was the duty of the prosecution to
make necessary arrangements for the
production of its witnesses…. The Police must
always remember that it has got a duty to the
court and they cannot just send a challan and
think that the rest will be done by the court.
When nobody appeared in t he court to inform
what the reason was for non-appearance of
the witnesses, the court could legitimately
come to the conclusion that the police was not
very serious in prosecuting the offence which
was a minor one. Under Section 245, the
Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if
there is no evidence to hold the accused
guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper
steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the
court to give them time to do the same, or to
issue fresh summons, the court was not
bound to fix another date. The police has a
duty towards the citizen. When the accused is
brought before the court and the prosecuting
department does not take any steps it will be
Judgment 6 C.C.No.8764/2019
an abuse of the process of the court to
continue the trial. Bringing a person before
the court accusing him of some offence is a
serious matter and however petty the offence
may be, the prosecuting department, must do
its duty towards the accused as well as the
court. When once the accused is challaned
there is no privilege given to the police to
remain absent”.
16. There are quite a number of decisions
in which it had been held that an acquittal of
the accused on the failure of the prosecution
to produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide
State v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of
Mysore v. Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116:
(1973 Cri LJ 1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v.
Kalilulla Ahmed Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60;
Kanduri Misra v. Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri
LJ 295; State of Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ;
State of Mysore v. Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri)
476: (1972 Cri LJ 1478) (Mys); State of Mysore
v. Shanta, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State
v. Nagappa, 1973 Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public
Prosecutor v. Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of
Kerala v. Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri)
330 (Ker); State of Mysore v. Narasimha
Gowda, AIR 1965 Mys 167; State of Gujarat v.
Thakorbhai Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v.
Ramjani, All LJ 1126; Lakshmiamma
Kochukuttiamma v. Raman Pillai, AIR 1952
Trav-Co 268; State v. Madhavan Nair, 1959
Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker); Emperor v.
Judgment 7 C.C.No.8764/2019
Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad 25 (2);
State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960 Mad LJ
(Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of Jammu
and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR 1963 J
& K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers Ltd. v.
Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, ;
K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S. Lakshmana Iyer,
1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR 1942 Mad 452
(1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan Deb Barma,
1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren Joseph v.
State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 10: (1972
Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these decisions,
there are the following decisions in which it
has been held that acquittal on the ground of
non-production of witnesses by the
prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the
Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under
Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the
prosecution failed to produce their witnesses,
a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court
observed in State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya
(1962)’2 Cri LJ 537 (2), as follows: “Where a
charge Is framed In a warrant case on police
report, if owing to the failure of the
prosecution to produce their witnesses and
owing also to the failure of the prosecution to
make full endeavour to serve the summonses
according to the provisions contained in
Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there
is no evidence before the Magistrate, the
Judgment 8 C.C.No.8764/2019
Magistrate can acquit the accused under
Section 251A (11).”
” In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti
1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v.
Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR
1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v.
Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970
Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real
distinction between the two decisions is as to
whether there was remissness and want of
diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency
in producing the witnesses before the Court
and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case applied to the facts of the
case with which the Division Bench was
concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul
Hameed Khan’s case, it was found on the facts
that the prosecution was not at all diligent as
the non-bailable warrants issued to the
witnesses had neither been served nor
returned to the court by the concerned police
and it was therefore held that where the
prosecution was not diligent in producing its
witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable
warrants on the witnesses and return the same
the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to
grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit
the accused on the material on record. We may
note here that in State of Karnataka v.
Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division
Judgment 9 C.C.No.8764/2019Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully
considering all the aforesaid decisions and the
views expressed therein, we are of the view
that if the prosecution had made an
application for the issue of summons to its
witnesses either under Section 242(2) or 254(2)
of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the duty
of the court to issue summons to the
prosecution witnesses and to secure the
witnesses by exercising all the powers given to
it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as
already indicated by us and if still the presence
of the witnesses could not be secured and the
prosecution also either on account of
pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does
not produce the witnesses after the Court had
given it sufficient time and opportunities to do
so, then the Court, being left with no other
alternative would be justified in acquitting the
accused for want of evidence to prove the
prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C.,
in the case of warrant cases instituted on a
police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P.
C. in summons cases, and we answer the two
questions referred to us in the above terms.
Hence, the Cw.2 to 5 witnesses are dropped after given
sufficient time. In order to prove the guilt of the accused No.2,
the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses as Pw.1 to Pw.6
and 08 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P.8.
Judgment 10 C.C.No.8764/2019
5. Thereafter examination of the accused under
Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, then the accused denied the
incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen
to lead his side evidence. Ex.D1 is got marked on his behalf.
6. Heard both sides and perused the evidence available
on record.
7. Upon hearing arguments advanced from both sides
and on perusal of materials placed on record, following points
arise for consideration:
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, on
26.07.2015, between 8.15 and 8.20 am,
while Cw.1 was on traffic control duty at
the bus stop going towards K.R. Puram,
on the jurisdiction of Amruthahalli Police
Station, Hebbal Ring Road, at that time,
the accused, brought and stopped the
BMTC bus K A 42 F 1760 at a no parking
place. When Cw.1 told the accused, that
the bus should not be stopped here, for
that, the accused No.1 & 2 picked up the
quarrel with Cw.1, who was working in
the government, and assaulted the Cw.1
with their hands, causing injuries and
thereby committed an offence punishable
U/sec.,332, 323 of IPC?
Judgment 11 C.C.No.8764/2019
2. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that, Further
the accused persons given life threat to
Cw.1 and thereby committed an offence
punishable U/sec.,506 of IPC?
3. What order.?
8. My findings to the above points are:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
9. POINTS NO.1 & 2: These points are inter connected
to each other and have taken for discussion in common to
avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. Further, I am of the
opinion that, I need not repeat the entire case of the complaint
here also, since I have already narrated the same at the
inception of this judgment.
10. The Cw.1. Pradeep.K.S, who is examined as Pw.1
and complainant/injured/material witness in this case, he has
deposed in his evidence before the court that, When he
reported for duty at the police station on 26.07.2015, the
station officer assigned me to traffic control duty on Hebbal
Ring Road. That day at 8.15 am, there was heavy traffic. So,
Judgment 12 C.C.No.8764/2019he instructed the bus drivers there to move forward. At that
time, a B.M.T.S. bus KA 42 F 1706 had stopped at a place
where there was no parking place. When he said, “You should
not stop the bus here move forward, the traffic is increasing
and it is causing inconvenience to the public,” the bus driver
came and abused him by saying, taking money from the
private bus drivers you are scolding us. Later, when he told
him that, the traffic congestion here will increase and that it
will cause trouble, if the bus does not stop, the bus conductor
Narayan Swavi came and abused him filthy language and in
the meanwhile, Sangamesh came in a KA.41.X4-301 two-
wheeler and joined the driver and conductor together
assaulted him with their hands and pushed him. Their
behavior interfered with his government duties. They both
together threatened that they would not leave him alone. Later
he went to the police station the same day and filed a
complaint about this. The police came to the scene at 10.30
am on the same day, inspected the place and conducted a spot
mahazar.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.2, had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he
do not know the accused persons before the incident, there is
a CCTV camera in the Hebbal signal and we may see the
incident place from the CCTV, he did not mentioned in his
complaint, ie., Ex.P1 where he had written the accused No.2
Judgment 13 C.C.No.8764/2019
two wheeler number when they were going and from the back
side he had written the alleged two wheeler number, further he
did not mentioned the identification of the accused No.2 in his
complaint Ex.P1, further he had not told the name of the
accused No.2 and his father and their address to his higher
officer, further he do know at what time he had been taken for
treatment to the hospital, further he do not remember he had
been taken to hospital after the spot mahazar or before the
spot mahazar, further he do not remember when he had given
his statement before his treatment or after his treatment,
further he admitted that, the accused No.1 had lodged
complaint against him due to that, reasons a FIR came to be
filed on him and further denied the rest of the suggestions put
by the learned counsel for the accused No.2.
11. The Cw.7 Smt. S.P.Shashikala, who is examined as
Pw.2 and incident eye witness in this case, she has deposed in
her evidence before the court that, on 08.09.2015, a request
letter was received from Amruthahalli Police Station,
requesting that a document be provided regarding the traffic
management work carried out by Police Constable Pradeep at
Hebbal Circle on 26.07.2015. Accordingly, she had checked
the station diary, verified its copy and sent the document to
Amruthahalli Police Station through a covering letter on
09.09.2015.
Judgment 14 C.C.No.8764/2019
12. The Cw.6 M.Naveen, who is examined as Pw.3 and
Bus Depo Manager, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, on 29.07.2015, a request letter was received in our
office from Amruthahalli Police Station, requesting us to
provide a record of the night duty of the driver Sunil Kumar
and conductor Narayana Swamy in bus KA 42.F.1706 on route
number 401/15 on 26.07.2015. Accordingly, he had provided
a letter in this regard on 10.08.2015 along with the original
copy of the route document kept by the conductor.
13. The Cw.8.Dr. Ganesh, who is examined as Pw.4 and
doctor witness in this case, he has deposed in his evidence
before the court that, on 26.07.2015 at 4 pm, Cw-1 came to
our hospital for treatment after being assaulted. When he was
subjected to medical examination, the following injuries were
found: Pain and swelling on the right ring finger, pain in the
abdomen. These injuries are simple in nature. He had given a
wound certificate in this regard.
14. The Cw.9 Sidda Ranga Swamy, who is examined as
Pw.5 and 1st IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence
before the court that, on 26.07.2015 at 10 am, when he was in
charge of the police station, he received the written complaint
given by Cw-1 and registered the case and submitted the
report to the Honorable Court and the superiors. Later on the
same day, he called the five and as per their agreement, I
Judgment 15 C.C.No.8764/2019
conducted the panchanama in the presence of Cw.4 and 5
from 10-30 am to 11-30 am at the place shown by the Cw-1.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.2, had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, after
taking the complaint from the complainant, he did not
enquired about the two wheeler nor collected any document
pertaining to the said two wheeler belongs to whom, he did not
conducted the initial investigation, not collected any CCTV
footages, nor sent any one to find the accused persons, not
given any notice to the pancha’s and further denied the rest of
the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused
No.2.
15. The Cw.10 Srinivas Raju, who is examined as Pw.6
and IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the
court that, On 29.07.2015, he received the file of the said case
from Cw.9 and conducted further investigation. On the same
day, I wrote a letter requesting a record of Cw.1’s duties and
accordingly, on 08.09.2015, he received the daily duty record
of Cw.1 and attached it to the file. Later, on 25.08.2015, he
obtained the wound certificate of Cw.1 from the Medical Officer
of Cw.8 and attached it to the file. Later on the same day,he
had recorded the statement of Cw.3. On 27.08.2015, the 1st
accused appeared at the police station after obtaining
anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble Sessions Court, so he had
taken action against him and released him on bail. Later on
Judgment 16 C.C.No.8764/2019
the same day, he had recorded the statement of Cw.2. On
08.09.2015, he had obtained the duty diary records of Cw.1
from the Hebbal Traffic Police Station and attached them to
the file. Later, since the investigation was completed, the
charges against the accused were prima facie proven, and he
had submitted a final report to the Hon’ble Court and the
superiors.
Further, the learned counsel for the accused No.2, had
cross examined the said witness, where in he stated that, he
came to know the address of the accused No.2 from the Pw.3
statement, further he do not remember which staff had been
deputed to find the accused persons, further he had not
enquired about the two wheeler which belongs accused No.2 or
anybody else, further the two wheeler belongs to the accused
No.2 he came to know through the B extract, further he had
not seized the alleged two wheeler, further he did not give any
notice to the accused No.1 who is the BMTC driver and further
denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel
for the accused.
16. It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable
doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable
doubt, the accused No.2 can not be held guilty of the alleged
offenses.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.8764/2019
17. On the other hand, the Pw.1 the
complainant/materiel witness, has not supported the
prosecution case where in there is lot inconsistency in his
evidence regarding the accused No.2 alleged two wheeler and
his identification of the accused No.2. Further the Pw.2 only
deposed about documents given to the concerned police as per
their request. Further, the Pw.3 who is the bus depo manager,
he also given the daily duty details of the accused No.1, who is
the BMTC driver, to the police as per their request. Further,
the doctor Pw.4 had deposed as per his treatment given to the
Cw.1 and given the wound certificate. Further the IO witnesses
ie.,Pw.5 and 6 they deposed as per their investigation and
submitted the final report to the court. Under such
circumstances, it is difficult to believe the version of the the
Pw.1 to 6 regarding the offence committed by the accused No.2
as alleged by the Pw.1 in Ex.P1. As such the case against the
accused No.2 is certainly would be entitled to benefit of the
doubt. Regarding this, this court relied on the following
Judgment.
On this point held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 – AIR 2016 SC
4581 in para 56, Hon’ble Apex held thus hereunder:
”56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion
however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and
that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal
charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of
Judgment 18 C.C.No.8764/2019”may be true”’ but has to essentially elevate it to the
grade of ”must be true”. In a criminal prosecution,
the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures
or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in
a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in
the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent
miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be
extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially
has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful,
intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an
impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the
touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a
primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if
two views are possible on the evidence available one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to
his innocence, the one favourable to the accused
ought to be adopted.”
18. Thus, the above Hon’ble Apex Court decision has
opt to the present case on hand and upon careful appreciation
of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, this
Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The
complainant, who is also the injured witness, is the star
witness of the prosecution. However, his evidence is found to
Judgment 19 C.C.No.8764/2019be riddled with material contradictions, inconsistencies, and
omissions, rendering his testimony unreliable. During the
course of his evidence, he has given inconsistent versions
regarding the existence and necessity of CCTV cameras at the
place of the alleged incident. Though the prosecution
attempted to rely upon the circumstances relating to CCTV
footage, the evidence of the complainant itself creates serious
doubt regarding the presence and relevance of such cameras.
19. Further, the complainant (Pw.1) has failed to
consistently identify the two-wheeler allegedly used in the
commission of the offence and has not clearly stated to which
accused the said vehicle belonged. This omission strikes at the
root of the prosecution case and weakens the identity of the
accused as the perpetrators of the alleged offence. It is also
significant to note that in the first information, namely Ex.P1-
Complaint, the complainant had not disclosed the addresses,
identity particulars, or sufficient identifying features of the
accused persons. Such material omissions in the earliest
version create serious doubt regarding the subsequent
implication and identification of the accused. During cross-
examination, the complainant, completely departed from the
prosecution version and did not support the material
allegations made in the complaint. His testimony is therefore
hostile to the prosecution case, and nothing worthwhile has
been elicited from him to corroborate the prosecution story.
Judgment 20 C.C.No.8764/2019
20. The complainant has further given contradictory
evidence regarding the treatment allegedly taken in the
hospital, the date and time of conducting the spot mahazar,
and the time at which his statement was recorded by the
police. These contradictions are not minor in nature but go to
the root of the prosecution case and materially affect its
credibility. Another significant circumstance brought on record
is that accused No.1 had lodged a complaint against the
complainant prior to the registration of the present case. The
existence of such prior complaint clearly indicates previous
rivalry and animosity between the parties. The possibility that
the present complaint has been lodged as a counterblast to the
complaint filed by accused No.1 cannot be ruled out. The
prosecution has failed to dispel this reasonable possibility.
21. Further, the prosecution has examined Pw.2 and
Pw.3 as official witnesses in an attempt to substantiate its
case. However, on careful scrutiny of their evidence, this Court
finds that their testimony does not advance the prosecution
case in any material aspect. The Pw.2, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Traffic Control, has deposed that,
pursuant to the requisition made by the Investigating Officer,
she merely furnished the documents available in her office to
the concerned police. Her evidence is purely formal in nature
and is confined to the production of official records. She has
neither witnessed the alleged incident nor has she deposed to
Judgment 21 C.C.No.8764/2019
any fact connecting the accused with the commission of the
alleged offence. Therefore, her evidence does not provide any
incriminating circumstance against the accused. Similarly,
Pw.3, who was working as the Depot Manager, has deposed
that, on receiving the requisition from the Investigating Officer,
he furnished the duty particulars, attendance details, and
employment records relating to accused No.1. His evidence is
also confined only to the production of official documents
maintained in the ordinary course of business. He has no
personal knowledge regarding the occurrence of the alleged
incident, nor has he spoken about any fact establishing the
involvement of accused No.1 in the commission of the alleged
offence.
22. The evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 is thus merely formal
and official in nature. It only establishes that certain records
were supplied to the Investigating Officer upon request. Such
evidence, by itself, does not prove the allegations made against
the accused No.2, nor does it corroborate the testimony of the
material witnesses regarding the occurrence of the incident.
Since the evidence of Pw.2 and Pw3 does not implicate the
accused No.2 in any manner, it is of no assistance to the
prosecution in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court holds that the evidence of Pw.2 and
Pw.3 is not helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt
of the accused No.2.
Judgment 22 C.C.No.8764/2019
23. The prosecution has examined Pw.4, the Medical
Officer, to prove the nature of the injuries sustained by the
complainant. Pw.4 has deposed only with regard to the
examination of the injured, the treatment administered, and
the issuance of the wound certificate. His evidence is purely
medical in nature and is confined to proving the existence and
nature of the injuries. It is well settled that medical evidence is
only corroborative in nature and cannot, by itself, establish
the identity of the assailants or prove the guilt of the accused
in the absence of reliable substantive evidence. Hence, the
evidence of Pw.4 does not, by itself, connect the accused with
the alleged offence. Further the Pw.5, the first Investigating
Officer, has deposed regarding the investigation conducted by
him. However, his evidence discloses several serious lapses in
the investigation. Though the alleged incident is stated to have
occurred at a place where CCTV cameras were admittedly
available, he has neither collected nor secured the CCTV
footage. The Pw.6, the subsequent Investigating Officer, has
also deposed regarding the further investigation conducted by
him. During his evidence, he has admitted that, he was not
personally aware of the identity or address of accused No.2
and that he came to know the particulars only through his
staff. Significantly, he did not verify whether accused No.2 was
actually residing at the stated address by conducting any
independent enquiry. Such failure casts serious doubt on the
Judgment 23 C.C.No.8764/2019
correctness of the investigation and the identification of
accused No.2. Further, Pw.6 has admittedly not conducted any
investigation with regard to the alleged two-wheeler said to
have been used in the commission of the offence. He neither
verified its ownership nor seized the said vehicle during the
course of investigation, he came to regarding the ownership of
the two wheeler through B extract. The alleged vehicle, which
forms an important link in the prosecution case, has thus
remained unverified and unproved.
24. It has also come on record that, Pw.6 failed to collect
the CCTV footage from the place of occurrence despite its
apparent availability. The non-production of the best available
electronic evidence, without any satisfactory explanation,
warrants drawing an adverse inference against the
prosecution. Had such evidence been collected, it could have
either supported or disproved the prosecution case. The failure
to secure such vital evidence creates a serious dent in the
prosecution version. The cumulative effect of these lapses,
namely the failure to collect CCTV footage, failure to seize the
alleged two-wheeler, failure to verify the identity and address
of accused No.2, failure to conduct a proper identification
process, and the overall defective investigation, creates
substantial doubt regarding the prosecution case. Such
defects are not mere irregularities but go to the root of the
matter and materially affect the credibility of the prosecution.
Judgment 24 C.C.No.8764/2019
In criminal jurisprudence, suspicion, however strong, cannot
take the place of legal proof. The prosecution is duty-bound to
establish every link in the chain of circumstances beyond
reasonable doubt. In the present case, the investigation suffers
from glaring omissions and deficiencies, and the evidence of
Pw.5 and Pw.6 does not inspire confidence. Their testimony,
therefore, does not assist the prosecution in proving the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of Pw.4,
Pw.5 and Pw.6 is insufficient to establish the charges against
the accused No.2. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt
of the accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore,
the accused No.2 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Hence,
with the above observations, I Answer to the Points No.1 & 2
in the Negative.
25. POINT NO.3: In view of the above findings on Point
No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
: ORDER :
In the exercise of powers Confirmed U/Sec,.
248(1) of Cr.P.C., The Accused No.2 is hereby
Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable
U/sec.,323, 332, 506 of IPC.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.8764/2019
The bail bond of Accused No.2 and surety
extended for further 6 months in order to comply
Sec.437A of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this bail bond
automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections
made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30 th day of
June-2026).
(Thimmaiah.G)
XLI ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W. 1 : Sri. Pradeep K.S
P.W. 2 : Smt. S.P.Shashikala
P.W. 3 : Sri. M.Naveen
P.W. 4 : Sri. Dr.Ganesh
P.W. 5 : Sri. Siddarayaswamy
P.W. 6 : Sri. Srinivas Raju
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Judgment 26 C.C.No.8764/2019
Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P3 : Police Station dairy
Ex.P4 : Route map
Ex.P5 : Duty assigned report
Ex.P6 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P7 : FIR
Ex.P9 : Duty report dairy
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS
MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 : B Extract
4. LIST OF THE MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION Digitally
signed by
THIMMAIAH G
NIL THIMMAIAH
G Date:
2026.07.13
17:35:27
+0530(Thimmaiah G)
XLI ACJM, Bengaluru.
Judgment 27 C.C.No.8764/2019
